Re: [PATCH] Mark gitk script executable

Jonathan Nieder [off-list ref] writes:

Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

Anders Kaseorg [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

The executable bit on gitk-git/gitk was lost (accidentally it seems) by 
commit 62ba5143ec2ab9d4083669b1b1679355e7639cd5.  Put it back, so that 
gitk can be run directly from a git.git checkout.

Note that the script is already executable in gitk.git, just not in 
git.git.

It did not lose the bit by accident but 62ba5143 pretty much was a
deliberate fix.  "gitk" is a source file, and its build product,
gitk-wish, is what is eventually installed with executable bit on.

How does this case differ from other executable source files like
git-am.sh?

Ok, strike that.

In the old days, some of us (but not me) used to value somewhat to be able
to run git-$frotz.sh from the build directory before installing, and having
the executable bit was in line with that philosophy.

I don't know if it still hold today, though.  For one thing, our Makefile
replace a lot more than it used to when building $(SCRIPTS) out of the
source files and git-$frotz.sh may not run in place as easily as before
anymore.

So it doesn't matter too much either way (and of course you can always say
"sh ./git-$frotz.sh" when it is not executable and the functioning of the
script does not depend on replacement done by the Makefile).

It seems that the majority is marked with executable bit, so just for the
sake of uniformity it probably is Ok to make it executable.  From a
purist's point of view, I'd rather see them uniformly marked as
non-executable, but as I said, it doesn't matter much to me (iow, meh).

The change needs to come from gitk repository, so I'll leave it up to Paul
;-)

Thanks for a sanity, Jonathan.

On Fri, 7 Jan 2011, Junio C Hamano wrote:

The change needs to come from gitk repository, so I'll leave it up to Paul
;-)

No, the script has always been executable in gitk.git.  The patch should 
be applied directly to git.git to bring the two repositories in sync.

Anders